Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (6910)	11/28/2000 10:35:55 AM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 17683

I wish I did have some good ideas about a better voting process. I suppose poll watchers could stop some of the more blatent transgressions, if we could be sure that we wouldn't need a watcher to watch the watchers. Similarly, sending all the ballots to a central counting place kind of reminds me of airport metal detectors, except that instead of trading freedom for safety, we'd be trading local control for central bureaucracy. I have real doubts about whether the thing relinquished is worth the trade for supposed benefits. The kink in the accounting process is that we guarantee people an annonymous vote, so we can only count the number of ballots distributed vs the number of marked ballots returned; there is no control over whether the SAME ballots that get counted are the ones distributed. So, it all comes down to people. I'm sure congress will establish some general guidelines for states to follow in how they design ballots and control the counting process, but they will (or at least should) keep the ultimate decisions in the purvue of the states. If regular people are going to be part of the process of government, we have to accept that the whole system will be messy and sloppy. Clean, neat, and efficient are words that apply to more totalitarian systems. <g> Apologies for the "brownshirt" remark. I know you didn't intend that. jim